Michael Piper and Final Judgment

[Greg Burnham]

Charles,

It doesn't take very "deep" thought to recognize the huge differences in tone and style between Albert Doyle's posts and Jim Fetzer's myriad of posts and articles that are widely available on the internet. I'm quite familiar with the way Jim posts, and his posts don't deviate much from a particular style. I don't have your confidence that Albert Doyle is now allowing someone else to post under his name, but whoever this Doyle is, I am quite certain it isn't Jim Fetzer.

First off Don, you are far and away LESS familiar with Jim Fetzer than am I--not only with his writing style, but with him as a person and as a friend. Would you care to compare our respective experiences with him to make sure? He was a very close friend of mine.

Again, my argument isn't so much with you declaring that Doyle isn't Doyle, it's that you are now stating as a fact that Jim Fetzer is posting under Doyle's name. Deep thinking would require that you factor in Fetzer's past eagerness in being a minority of one; everything about him would indicate he would not shy away from promoting Piper any more than he has backed down from siding with Baker, Cinque, etc.

Perhaps you failed to read my previous post or fully comprehend it. I offered two alternatives: Either it is Jim posting OR it is an attempt to create that impression. If the latter, wouldn't you agree that it is being done for a reason. A very DEEP reason?

I believe Jim Fetzer is now about 70 years old. Unless you are willing to postulate that he has always been a disinfo agent, why would he now, at such an age, decide to become one? Why would he choose someone like Albert Doyle, who was vehemently opposed to his Cinque arguments about Oswald in the doorway, for this mysterious, seemingly pointless bit of impersonation? Why would Doyle permit someone he disagreed with to post under his name? Yes, you can urge me to read all the past posts in this thread, but your thesis here is mind boggling. You are inferring that both Fetzer and Doyle never were mere posters on a forum, but in fact some kind of intel assets. How are you comfortable with putting out that kind of allegation publicly under your name?

I find your reasoning intolerably shallow.

You are the one who is not thinking deeply here. You are lashing out at Albert because you object to the fact he thinks Israel was a primary mover behind the assassination. Then you further attempt to tie him in with someoerne else you have recently had a fallout with, primarily over his association with Cinque. You're letting your personal bias cause you to forumate theories that are, to use your own term, laughable.

I will not buy your book. I fear it will be monumentally disappointing based on your inability to accept the possibilty of things you find too repugnant to even consider in a rational manner. The falling out that I had with Fetzer has nothing to do with my choosing to expose this ruse. I have not figured out if it is Jim or if it is a clever attempt by those who would wish us to throw out his entire body of work. They may be taking this opportunity due to his having left himself wide open because of the absurdity of his recent claims.